For city and suburban dwellers, rural and wild areas have long been a source of refuge from urban woes and the monotony of subdivisions and strip-malls. For rural residents, small towns and agricultural areas provide a sense of location and community. Apart from its physical attributes, the rural landscape in many places stands in stark contrast to the homogeneity and exclusivity of the suburbs. With a wealth of land and a paucity of people in rural regions, housing is inherently affordable, fostering a diverse population comprised of varying economic and ethnic groups. Yet the charm and low land prices that make rural America so appealing may well lead to its undoing.

Suburban sprawl and the resulting conflict at the urban-rural fringe are not new phenomena in this country. Nevertheless, the relatively recent phenomenon of “leap-frog” development--the haphazard establishment of residential developments in rural areas far from the suburban frontier --is creating new tensions between traditional rural dwellers and prospective newcomers. Such developments may take a number of different forms. One type of leap-frog development consists of what can appropriately be called “tract mansions”--large, similar-looking homes constructed in serried groups in a field or a bulldozed lot that are significantly more expensive than the modest dwellings they border. Comprising a second group are what can be described as “tract hamlets”-- developments of lower-priced box-shaped structures, reminiscent of the Levittown subdivisions of the 1950s. These houses are typically marketed towards families with limited purchasing power who want to live in a pastoral setting. Similarly, commercial centers, mobile home parks, and high-density housing complexes may leap-frog far into the rural frontier.

These new housing complexes can create significant problems for rural America. Higher-priced leap-frog development displaces lower-income families as a result of increased land prices and taxes. When poorly planned, leap-frog development can have significant environmental, aesthetic, and social impacts on rural communities. Leap-frog development, therefore, has aroused not only the interest of prospective new-home buyers and builders but the ire of local residents.

Rural and small-town residents have been quite vocal in their opposition to continued leap-frog development in their regions, and in many areas citizens have attempted to employ local land-use controls to exclude newcomers. Such efforts have put a fascinating twist on the exclusionary zoning phenomenon occurring in this country's suburbs. Exclusionary zoning has been used by some localities and influential suburbanites to preserve the socio-economic and racial homogeneity of suburban areas. Reverse-exclusionary zoning as it exists in the rural context is one means of combating leap-frog development, and in many cases is aimed at middle- and higher-income families in an effort to retain the atmosphere of small towns and to prevent economic displacement of the families already residing therein.

Part II of this Note provides a brief historical background to the zoning power, including the Euclid decision, an analysis of the exclusionary zoning phenomenon in America, and a discussion of judicial attempts to prevent the use of zoning and planning for illegitimate purposes, including the Mount Laurel cases. Part III explores the effects of leap-frog development and the phenomenon of reverse exclusionary zoning as a reaction to such population increases. Part IV provides an overview of potential reverse exclusionary zoning tactics and an analysis of the legal ramifications of such measures in terms of the existing prohibitions against exclusionary zoning. In Part V the author suggests some land-use-based techniques to aid in the sensible development of rural areas.